No means no

R. v. Potvin, 2012 ONCA 113 is a useful case setting out the principle that only where reasonable steps to investigate consent are taken can a mistaken belief claim success:


[3]          On behalf of the appellant, duty counsel submits that it was reasonable for the appellant to believe that the complainant was consenting to sex because she ultimately said "okay". 

[4]          We disagree.  It was precisely when the complainant said "okay" – after repeatedly saying "no", providing various reasons for why she did not want to have sex, and resisting the appellant's efforts to take her into the bedroom of her apartment – that the appellant's obligation to take steps to ascertain whether there was a reasonable basis for his belief in the complainant's consent arose.  There is simply no evidence that the appellant did anything to ascertain if the complainant was in fact willing to have sex.  Instead, on the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant, which the trial judge accepted, the appellant "acted as if he hadn't heard anything"